Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 103

Thursday, December 31 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:04:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

After my initial shock at RMS's discrediting of R' Tzadok wore off, I
first went to Shul this morning - and came back - armed with quotes from
the Ma'or va'Shemesh that are very much in line with R' Tzadok's
definition of the role of a "Nefesh Kolleles" aka "Tzaddik." But, then it
struck me - what's the point - after all, the Ma'or va'Shemesh has no
Chassidic following today, so from RMS's viewpoint - what would I prove.

I think I would like to reiterate and expand RDE's response to the
dismissal of R' Tzadok. It would seem from RMS's perspective - and perhaps
he represents larger segements of Chassidism - that we Misnagdim who felt
we had stumbled onto the "Ma'or" of Chassidus - in R' Tzadok, the
Izhbitzer, the Piacaszner, the Slonimer, perhaps even Sefas Emes - from
RMS's perpsective, have really discovered nothing at all. With the
possible exception of the Sefas Emes, it would seem that "real" Chassidus
can only be defined as those that have a *large* following today: Belz,
Vizhnitz, Satmar, Zanz-Klausenberg, perhaps Gur - and definitely not

Difficult as that is for me to accept, what RMS is saying is that we have,
perhaps, expanded our Misnagdus into the periphery of Chassidus, but have
not struck the mother lode.

If that is the case, and seeing that the overwhelming majority of
Misnagdim have found little to attract them in that "mother lode," then,
indeed, theologically and philosophically, the rifts must, perforce, be as
strong today as ever.


Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:30:00 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com

On a related note, R' Teitz has decreed that Lubavitchers must renounce
the concept of yechida kellalis to be accepted in the mainstream.

It was hardly a "decree", only my opinion of what it would take to fix
matters.  And not so much that they renounce the concept, but rather the
identification of their rebbe as that person ( although I did not make this
last point at all clear ).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:41:48 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Re: Yaakov Avinu

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:

Here we go again, denigrating the Avos. This time, Yaakov Avinu = Bill
Clinton. Shomu Shomayim!

Sorreee!  Even I as the unwilling representative of the Bash the Avos School
on this list could not conceive of such an obscene equation and I am
shocked and appalled that you would attribute it to me.  Can't you see that I
am trying to take what the Torah tells us about the Avot seriously and am
trying to understand for myself what the Torah is trying to tell us?  It is very
nice to just sit back and say oh well Chazal said this was fine and that
was okay and the Rishonim didn't make a fuss, so who am I to ask
questions.  But if I don't understand, I will continue to raise issues that I think
are worth discussing.  If you can point me to places where these issues have
been addressed, I will be most grateful.  I certainly make no claims to b'kius
of all the relevant Midrashim and M'pharhim, so if, as is quite possible, my
questions stem from ignorance, I shall be happy to receive instruction.  I
would also observe once again, the same point concerning Ya'akov's
deception of his father and the consequences that flowed therefrom was
made some time ago on this list and did not elicit any outraged responses. 
Perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that I was not expressing views that
were beyond the pale.

The Torah does not categorically forbid falsehood. Even if it did, Aveira
Lishma figured prominently at the time of the Avos.

Note: I am willing to countenance that there must be punishment for Aveira
Lishma - there is an explicit Bigdei Shesh to that effect :-). But the
Aveira Lishma still remains the proper course of action to have taken.

You do not address my basic question, which is why is the moral
blameworthiness (which you acknowledge, though you believe it justified by
extenuating circumstances) of Jacob's deception of his father is in any way
mitigated by the mental reservation postulated by the Midrash.  I am troubled
by these hidden mental reservations that somehow are supposed to make
permissible what would otherwise be a lie.  The Midrash uses it to absolve
Jacob from blame and a similar mental reservation is the linchpin of Clinton's
defense (I hate to keep bringing him into this) but how is the geneivat da'at
mitigated by resort to a mental reservation? 

Elie Ginsparg writes:

Why do we have to continue reading about unfounded claims against
midrashim and inturn which are against the avos. Can you  please explain
why the midrash "is going out of it's way and why is it dochek" but before
you answer please see the or hachaim who fits this into p'sat and the gur
aryeh who explains why the pasuk itself proves that this is the correct
interpretation, besides for the sifsei chachmim who says this is psat
because it can't be the yaakov lied outright--why should I trust your
questions and not our gedolim's answers

Whether it is p'shat in the pasuk or not, I will not dispute now.  My main point
is that if Jacob really replied to his father's direct question about who he was
with a statement that, in the context, he knew and intended for his father to
interpret in a false way when he, because of a mental reservation, could
interpret in a different way, I don't see how the moral blameworthiness of his
conduct is any way less than if he had responded with a straightforward,
unambiguous (honest) lie.  That is the question to which I am seeking a
> What significance can Jacob's mental reservation have when his intent
> to mislead?  And again, this is where Clinton comes in, when the point of
> mental reservation is precisely to facilitate the deception doesn't it magnify
> the moral blameworthiness of the deception?

   As RYGB already noted Bill
Clinton doesn't enter a comparison with Yaakov avenu.

And as I already noted, I am not suggesting a comparison between them.  I
am questioning the use of a mental reservation as a way of escaping blame
for lieing.

the subsequent narrative makes it quite clear
> that, for the rest of his life, Jacob was the repeated victim of lies and
> deceptions that were perpetrated against him.  If we believe that these
> events were not merely coincidental, don't we have to assume that they
> represented Divine retribution for the deception he perpetrated against his
> father?  And isn't Rivka's death just before the return home of her beloved 
> son evidence of Divine retribution for her role in the deception?  "alai
> k'lalatcha b'ni."

Instaed of assuming, why don't we turn to Chazal to find out. Lets go
through the times Yaakov was decieved: when he was tricked into marrying
Leah--The midrash asks ( why this happened and said it was in Leah's merit
that she davened to marry Yaakov instead of Esav. The midarsh (berashis
rabbah 70:17) notes that yaakov asked Leah how did you lie to me, she
responded I learned from you--Ie I didn't lie only acted with wisdom in
order to act lsem shamayim in order to do what is correct . I don't see
Yaakov being punished as much as Leah being rewarded. The fact that
yaakov was decieved in the same way he decieved so that Leah could be
rewarded doesn't indicate yaakov was punished (see also eitz yosef
sham that refers to Yaakovs words as a sheker but in the context of it
being mutar becasue of shalom or at worst an aveiro
lishma--Se RYGB post).  

Excuse me, are you saying that it is just a coincidence that the Borei
u'Manhig ha-olam chose to reward Leah for her desire to marry Jacob
through an act of deception.  Was there no other way available to the
Almighty to bring about the union of Jacob and Leah but through Laban's
deception?  If Jacob was not being punished, the Torah makes it quite clear
that he was not at all happy about what had happened.

<<<Next time yaakov was
tricked was with his dealings with Lavan but since he ended up taking much
of what Lavan owned, I don't see the punishment. 

All's well that ends well?  That he finally received adequate compensation for
the tweny years of hard labor that made Laban wealthy does not mitigate his
suffering during the twenty years.

Concerning Rivka's
death-I found no reference that it was related to Yaakovs lie, It's very
difficult to say she was punished for the episode since Hashem is the one
who gave her the nevuah to act this way.

Her nevuah did not include the instruction to plot with her son to deceive her
husband.  She could have told her husband about her nevuah.  As we
discussed earlier, Sarah was not shy about giving Abraham instructions about
the proper roles of his two sons.  And Abraham was ordered to follow her

Furthermore, if anything it is a
punishment to Rivka not yaakov, so where's your proof and finnally it's
more likely if this indeed was a punishment to yaakov it was because he
delayed in fullfilling his vow, something chazal does blame Yaakov for (so
why make up new complaints when chazal's are already in place.) 

You are assuming that my motivation is to find fault.  I know that it may be
difficult for you to believe this, but that is not my motivation.  It is rather to try
to understand what the Torah is telling us.  Jacob's delay infulfilling his vow
doesn't help me to understand his conduct in deceiving his father for the
sake of somehow receiving blessings that were intended for his brother.  

The last
time yaakov was decieved was with Yosef and in fact I actually found a
midrash to kind of support you, but alas it's a Zohar so it's probably
forged anyways, 

That's okay, I'm not proud.

but for us who believe in the authenticity of the Zohar I
will bring it. The Zohar Vayeshev daf 185b says that Yaakov was
decievedwith the goat's blood because he decieved Yitzchak with goats.
But the
zohar doesn't refer to his statement because it wasn't a lie and even in
regards to this the zohar writes (translation from soncino's zohar) We
learn from this passage how particular G-d is with the righteous,EVEN WHEN
THEY ACT CORRECTLY.For although Yaakov acted fittingly in bringing a
he-goat to his father...yet because he decieved his father he was punished
through the other he goat.... We see that this was only considered
deception worthy of punishment because of the level that Yaakov was

But does the Zohar try to mitigate the deception by introducing a mental

David Glasner

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:37:19 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Re: Chabad

It is only a notion of belief in what the Lubavitcher Rebbe said since
Chof-Ches Nissan 5751 -- before that point (and I wasn't frum then)
it was more an issue of our avodah should be b/c Moshiach could be here
imminently we should conduct ourselves accordingly and we shouldn't worry
about how could this generation be the one, etc.

I had a roommate when I was learning in the Yeshiva in Philadelphia who told
me, in 1975, that his uncle had left Chabad chasidus almost 20 years earlier
because he had been asked to sign a petition that the Lubavitcher Rebbe should
already reveal himself as mashiach.  The game has been going on far longer
than many people think, and the rebbe was not only aware of it, in his talks
he was obvious enough about it to catch the attention of the Brisker Rav, who
noted the implications of the rebbe's words.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:47:18 -0500
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Requesting clarification

 "By their reputations, both in their lifetimes and afterwards, I am
certain they did not think they were puppets."  (emphasis added -ML)

     I assume you don't mean, but in reality they were.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:58:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
yaakov aveinu

In attempt to find out the source of my disaggreement with David Glassner
I propose the following.Let's look at morality as defined by the Torah
Genocide of the seven nation---moral
pulling the plug on a terminally ill person----not moral
Kicking a mother and her child out of her house by Hashems word--moral
decieving one's father because your mother told you to and it's ratzon
tricking a stranger out of a penny--- not moral etc...
I hold that I should let the Torah with Chazal's interpretation define
morality and be mevatel my daas to the Torah's morality to the point where
I don't question because I don't always understand the ways of hashem.
I'm not suggesting one shouldn't think or question in other areas, but
when it comes to the definition of
morality (Ie what's right and wrong) I believe that it is axiomatic to
Judaism that Torah and Chazal define what is right and wrong regardless of
what we might think. even the concept of naval breshus hatorah is defined
by what chazal say is the naval (see Ramban to kedoshim). I know David
Glassner agrees that ultimately What the
Torah says is what we do and the ratzon Hashem is the most important thing
therefore I ask him and all others to whom this is relevant to attempt to
find out what the core of this dispute is so we don't have to go around in
Elie  Ginsparg

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:22:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
Re: Avodah V2 #102

> From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
> Subject: assorted topics, kedushas ha'aretz kodem M"T
> 1. The implication that Ya'akov was guilty of deception is borne out in Da'as
> Zekeinim on Braishis 29:25 - "mimch lamaditi zeh haramaut...".  The reading of
> Anochi Eisav bechorecha k'pshuto as a lie ' may be justified as bending' the
> truth for tzorchei sha'ah - see Ibn Ezra to Braishis 20:12 for what I think is
> the first instance.

===> I believe that the Da'as Zekanim is simply quoting the midrash here
-- wherein Leah "justifies" her actions as somehow being paralle to
Yaakov's -- She apparently ignores the fact that he did this only under
the direction of his Mother (and this may be why the Midrash states that
Yaakov disliked her so much that he was about to divorce her).

> 2. Aveira Lishma - As far as I know the gemera Nazir applies the term only to
> the ma'aseh with Yael - never to the Avos.   I cannot find the term used in
> Nefesh HaChaim.  R' Chaim's lomdus is that kodem matan Torah there was no
> concept of aveirah in the ordinary sense of an immutable statute - aveirah
> lishma means you have violated the aveira, just b'kavanah l'shem shmayaim.
> Crucial distinction, no?

===> Please see NetZiV on that parsha for a rather complete (IMHO)
discussion of how this case was an aveira l'shmo.


> - -Chaim  
> ------------------------------
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Erev Rav
> Once more, I am put in the uncomfortable position of defending a theology
> that is not my own, but the Gr"a also speaks about Erev Rav - such as in
> Aderes Eliyahu p. 324 on Devarim 1:1: "Bein Paran u'bein Tofel" and says
> Ba'alei Machlokes and Lashon Hara; Thos who pursue Ta'avos, Tricksters and
> Charlatans, Those who pursue Honor, and Those who pursue Money are all
> Erev Rav, but the Ba'alei Machlokes are worse - they are from Amalek,
> Moshiach does not come until they are eradicated and concerning them it
> says "Timcheh es Zecher Amalek."

===> But in that case, the indentification is made in terms of "Middos
Ra'os" and not simply in terms of Shemiras Hamitzvos.

> Now, R' Tzadok (Pri Tzaddik Zachor 5) takes this to be a spiritual war
> that goes on in everyone's own soul, but it seemsR' Chaim Tzanzer took it
> literally.

===> Again, it could be that this applied to certain *personality types*
and not simply people who were not chassidim or adherents of a particular

> More sources (including the grounding in Zohar) and discussion - and where
> I received my information - may be found in R' Moche Yechiel (Weiss)
> Tzuriel's Beis Yechezkel Hilchos Dei'os pp. 83-84. 

===> Again, is the crucial point defined in terms of shemiras hamitzvos or
in terms of certain very bad personality paradigms?

> You may now, in any event, readily understand Eida Chareidis signs that
> say "timche es Amalek haTziyoni..."

===> Nope.  A Tziyoni is NOT necessariy possessed of the particular middos
ra'os that were described as being characterized by Amalek.  Thus, the
signs as stated seem to do nothing except encourage sin'as chinom....


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:31:52 -0500
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Two rabbinical stories - Yakov & Rivkah

A poster wrote "(As an aside, Leah's reaction by the duda'im "Hme'at
kachtach es ishi..." is quite difficult to comprehend.  It was DUE TO
RACHEL that Leah was even ABLE to successfully
marry Yaakov -- how could she make such an accusation to Rachel??  This
requires much "talmud" because on the surface, Leah appears to us as a
lady who is totally "kefuyat tova".....)"

A few year ago I heard a drasha from Rav Yochanon Zweig that I think goes a
long way to answering this and some of the other questions that have been
floating around.   This is a synopsis of the drasha.  (Sorry for the
length, but it deals with several questions)

He asked

(1) As a poster asked how can Leah say "mimcha lamadity?"
(2) The above dudaim question.
(3) How could Lavan have such a koach to "change" the history of am
(4) What's pshat in Yitzchak wanting to give the brochoh to Esav?

     He started the answer with another question.  We all know the CHAZAL
that Leah had einayim racos because people said the older one was going to
marry the older one, and the younger one was going to marry the younger one
which meant she was going to marry Esav.  Still why is she crying - people
say a lot of things - who says it's going to happen?  I mean Esav is in a
different country?

     He explained that in reality the bas kol mem yom kodem hvlad had
announced that lder one was going to marry the older one, and the younger
one was going to marry the younger one.  So she had reason to be scared!
This explains what Leah was saying - mmichah lamadity that you are now the
bechor so I am supposed to be your wife!  Also by the dudaim she says to
Rachel you stole my husband - min hashamayim he was supposed to marry me!
Lavan was also fulfilling the will of Hashem.  This is why Yakov, Rochel
and Yosef are always worried that Esav is going to take Rochel.  He can now
that she is his wife!  (He said it's a seperate shiur how Rochel can also
be Yakov's wife.)

     Now on to the "big question" - what's pshat in Yitzchak wanting to
give the brochoh to Easv?  Yitzchak must of had some idea of who Esav was (
"hakol kol Yakov",  shem Hashem shagur bpiv, don't steal it...) Yitzchak
though new that klall yisroel needed two areas of abilities.  We needed the
ish tam yoshev ohel, but we also needed the gibor and melech.  Yitzchak
wanted to broker a partnership between the brothers to accomplish this.
(Rivkah knew this wouldn't work because Esav would not lower himself to the
daas Torah of Yakov. )

     Now though that Esav was not to be part of klall yisroel how was klal
yisroel to get these abilities? (Another mehalech which he did not discuss
is that by "stealing" the brocha Yakov showed he encompassed both types of
attributes.)  He explained that in a certain way just like there are
physical genes there are "spiritual genes."  When the bas kol said the
older one was going to marry the older one it was because they had the same
spiritual genes.  Leah had in her the same potentials of Esav.

     How do we see this?  Why else does Leah say riu bni eino cben chamav
when Reuvein is born if not because he could have been.  Why does Rashi
have to tell us the dudaim were not stolen?  on the choshen the stone of
Reuvein is Edom.   Shimeon & Levi are achim that have cli chamas.  As for
Yehudah the Gemarah in Sannhedrin says mah bein Dovid (from Yehudah)
Hadmoni & Esav Hadmoni?  The Gemarah answers Dovid was willing to be shafel
his daas to the chachamim while Esav would not.

     After these 4 sons are born the Torah says & Leah stopped giving
birth.  This is strange because there is less time between Yehudah and
Yissacher being born than between Yosef and Binyomin being born, and it
doesn't say that Rochel stopped giving birth.  RYZ explained that Leah
(maybe in zchus of the dudaim?) had stopped giving birth to children with
this dangerous, though needed, "spiritual genetics."  A rayah to this is
that by the first four sons The name of Hashem is used for God while the
later ones say Elokim.

     He added that by Yosef it says Hashem & Elokim because he encompassed
both sets of attributes.  (He had this because in some ways he is a child
of both Leah & Rachel according to the pshat that Dinah was conceived as
Yosef.)  This is why Yosef can overwhelm Esav because he has both his and
Yakov's cochos.

     Have a great shabbos!

     P.S.  On the question of why certain Rabbis list the institutions they
are involved with I just want to point out that a while back a poster
requested that people do that - so that people know who they are talking

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 19:29:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Frankel <FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil>
Three Data Queries: Mo'etzes, 27 Adar, Yeitiv Leiv

Three Data Queries:
1.  While i've been hearing of the Aguda's Moetzes Gidolei haTorah ever since
those long ago summers when i was a regular camper in Camp Agudah (the titular
hubris of which struck me even as a 12 year old), i never actually knew who was
on it back then, and my counselors were pretty vague about it when I asked them
i.e. they too did not know.  Could someone please provide a list of the current
membership?  As the JO is hardly on my regular reading list, is this list
carried in that party organ, as i might expect ? 

2.  What with all the Lubavitch stuff back and forth (a thread on which i'm
thoroughly overdosed at this point, though, as an outsider, I did appreciate
the insights into current events) a knowledgable poster referred a number of
times to the 27th of Adar (i think that was the date) as though the watershed
events of that date were part of the common jewish consciousness.  Again, i
don't have a clue as to what was being referenced.  Any enlightenment duly

3.  I believe somebody mentioned something about the Yeitiv Lev's alleged
attitude to Chemdas Hayomim.  I wasn't aware of this and would appreciate a
citation. (in part just curiosity, the YL is my great great grandfather)     
 BTW:  re R. Dovid Eliezrie's remark that: >  > I find strange the definition
of Klal Yisroel, which seems to me to some > writers on this list "the
Litrvasher Yeshiva world". Which is as insular, if > not more so than
Lubavitch.... Without providing another (external) subjective opinion as to who
is more insular than whom, my anecdotal experience is that the tendency
identified by the poster extends well beyond this list.  The rav of my own shul
here in silver spring is much given to describing R. Schach, shlitoh, whom he
admires very greatly, as the leader of kilal yisroel, with not the slightest
sensitivity to the gross abuse of the definite article inherent in that

Mechy Frankel		frankel@hq.dswa.mil	 michael.frankel@dtra.mil



Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:45:18 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Yaakiov's Genivas Daas

I believe that we are all familiar with the Midrash that goes out of its
way to absolve Jacob from having lied to his father when he said "ani Eisav
b'chorecha."  But how does the dohak parsing of Jacob's reply in any way
absolve Jacob from the moral blame he incurred by misleading his father? <<

Nireh li bepashtus, he was acting under direct orders from his Mom, kibbud Eim. 
He protested "uley yemushein....: and Rivko told hinm aloy kilescho.  He was 
being somiech on his Mom who happenede to be a nevio at leat accordgin to the 
simple peshat vayomer hashem Loh.  if aavrohom could shecht his son al pi 
nevuoh, (and Yistzchok was someich upon his reliability) why can't Yaakov rely 
upon his Mom.  I find him asolutely blameless.

Rich Wolpoe 

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:45:47 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Assei lecho Rav

Now let's go way back in time.  A fellow is a Talmid Muvhok of Yochonon Cohen 
Gadol.  All of a sudden, Yochonon CG becomes a Tzeduki; is that Talmid required 
to follow suit?  If not required, is it ok for him to follow his rebbe despite 
the oppsoition of all the other Gedolim and Zkeinim of his generation?

In general, when is one required or able to break away from one's rebbe muvhak 
al ip halocho, and when does one follow his rebbe muvhok even though what he is 
saying sounds questionable?  

Rich Wolpoe 

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:20:53 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Re: [none]

>Micha Bergers posting of the corrospondence between a Moshichist and Rabbi
>Yitzchak Meyer Kagan of Detroit is exacltly the point I have been making
>here. Rabbi Kagans letter was circulated all around the country and had an
>heavy impact. About a year ago when a person making a Chupah in Detroit
>planned on saying Yechie under the Cupah the local Lubavitch Schluchim
>boycotted the Chupah in protest. These kind of efforts are far from the
>public eye, but davka this person by person approach has been making an

Dovid, I was at a chassinah in CH, where the parents were
anti-meshichistan and someone said yechi anyway. (Apparently the
chosen wanted it.) I think we can throw these anicdotes around. If
the change isn't apparent in NY, then you will still have a hard time
convincing people that it has moved very much.

Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:21:57 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Re: RMS's Remarks

>On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> I have relatives who are Breslov and they are much more like regular
>> chasidim then like Chabad.
>When I was in Sha'alvim, one of the most talented Israeli bachurim became
>a Breslover (new style - there is old style and new style Breslov as
>well). What he became certainly did not look like any regular Chossid.
>(I am talking about conduct, not dress).

Yes they are considered strange.

>> Shirayim has nothing to do with deveykus in a Rebbe.
>Of course not - it is dveykus in Hashem via a Rebbe.

Yosef, let me state this in the strongest terms. You are a Litvak with a
Chabad background, where to do you get the chutzpah to tell me who is a
non-Chabad Chassid, what OUR customs are about? Shirayim has 0 to do with
dveykus. According to our Rebbes dveykus means that in mochshovah, diber and
maasoh you act with a total awareness and submission to HaShem. Shirayim has
nothing to do with that. You are probably trying say that shirayim has to do
with hiskashrus with the Rebbe. That is ONLY true if the Rebbe sends you
something. The eating of shirayim in generalis based on what the Talmud says:
m'shichurov beis hamikdash shulchono shel adom m'chapair. Because of that what
a Rebbe eats is on the madreigah of a korbon. (I heard that my Rebbe's father
ZT'L said that even if it isn't eaten it becomes Kadosh just like the lechen
hapanim.) Eating sharayim is like sharing in the eating of kudoshim. (BTW
there are a number of other reasons mention in the work 'Divrei Torah' by the
Minchas Eluzar ZT'L.) I would apprecite it if you would refrain from such

>> This is done by a small group of people who to put it kindly fit one of
>> the catagories of choresh shotah katan.
>I dunno, I saw some of them, they seemed lucid.

Lucid does not exclude one from being a shotah.

>> As are visits to Rebbe Reb Meilech and the graves of other Tzaddikim.
>You know, it would be interesting to try and understand that as well.

Kulev visited Chevron.

>> Your uncles are among the very FEW Ihave ever heard who will admit that.
>Taken a poll? But, I do not think it is relevant - again, it seems to me
>that no Chosid will admit that their Rebbe can bve flat out wrong.

There is a diffeence between theoretical and practical.

Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:22:28 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Re: Why Other Chassidim Do Not Engage in Kiruv

>Speaking - as RYZ did - about the Erev Rav, I believe the reason most
>Chassidim do not do Kiruv is because they hold most Jews are Erev Rav
>(other than their sects and related ones), so it is a questionable effort
>at best. The Divrei Chaim (Hasmotos l'Vayakhel) writes:
>"...Hashem commanded not to connect to the Erev Rav in any way, and
>[only] thus will they be worthy to build a Mishkon, for Jews themeselves
>are holy, but the Erev Rav, however all good deeds they do are only for
>their own advantage, as is apparent,as the Rabbanim, Chassidim and Ba'alei
>Battim in our generation are mostly from the Erev Rav, and flock to bear
>authority over the community, and all of their deeds are only for
>themselves to garner honor and money. Therefore, only interact with those
>who serve [Hashem] in truth and devote themselves to Hashem without any
>benefit to themselves.

1. Have you read the whole Torah? What was it about? 2. If he was opposed to
'kiruv' could you explain how come we have mikibal stories of Moshe (?) Deutch
who was a BT from Germany who became a Tzanzer Chasid. (I have heard a number
of interesting stories about him.) 3. If you red carefully what you have
written the Erev Rav (you know what the Zohar says these are?) are FRUM
JEWS!!! Maybe if you have a real interest I will tell you why there is at best
limited kiruv efforts. (Belz has in Israel, Bobov in Toronto, and I think
there are others.) Those that are run are done in different ways.

Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:23:34 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Re: Non Moshiach Lubavitch Issues

>Dovid Eliezrie wrote:
>>  We have a valid shittah in Torah. If someone walks into my Chabad House (in
>> California) and learns how to put on Tefilin I have no reason not to teach
>> my Minhag.
>Of course you can teach him your minhag.  The problem is that there is
>no attempt to differentiate between your minhagim and the minhagim of
>other segments of Jews.    You teach your minhagim as though they are
>the essence of Judaism.  By the time they realize that putting on
>teffilin according to the Chabad minhag is only one of many differing
>minhagim amongst Klal Israel, they are well indoctrinated into Chabad.
>This leaves them no freedom of choice to explore other streams such as
>the Litvishe, Yeshiva,  or modern orthodox or even other Hasidic
>movements. Chabad Kiruv seems to imprint on the Baal Teshuva that Chabad
>is the only true way to be an Oved HaShem.  Compare that to the approach
>of NCSY.  "Graduates" of NCSY are found all over Judaism, from YU to

I have met a number of BT's, and those who had been in Lubavitch for a few
years were in such a state that they could NEVER join another group and fit
in. (I have seen it tried.)

Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

< Previous Next >